Are Busy Boards Effective Monitors?
Firms with busy boards, those in which a majority of outside directors hold three or more directorships, are associated with weak corporate governance. These firms exhibit lower market-to-book ratios, weaker profitability, and lower sensitivity of CEO turnover to firm performance. Independent but busy boards display CEO turnover-performance sensitivities indistinguishable from those of inside-dominated boards. Departures of busy outside directors generate positive abnormal returns. When directors become busy as a result of acquiring an additional directorship, other companies in which they hold board seats experience negative abnormal returns. Busy outside directors are more likely to depart boards following poor performance.
KeywordsCorporate Governance Firm Performance Abnormal Return Board Size Independent Board
The paper benefited from comments by participants at the 2005 American Finance Association meetings, the 2004 Financial Research Association conference, and by seminar participants at Drexel, INSEAD, Seton Hall, North Carolina State, University of North Carolina, and Universidade Catolica de Portugal. The authors thank Anup Agrawal, Stuart Gillan, Bill Greene, Naveen Khanna, Robert Stambaugh, David Yermack, and an anonymous referee for helpful suggestions. The authors acknowledge financial support from the Wachovia Center for Corporate Finance.
- Beasley, M. (1996). An empirical analysis of the relation between the board of director composition and financial statement fraud. Accounting Review, 71, 443–465.Google Scholar
- Brown, W., & Maloney, M. (1999). Exit, voice and the role of corporate directors: Evidence from acquisition performance. Working paper, Claremont McKenna College.Google Scholar
- Cummings, J. & Jaffe G. (2000). A floated name for cabinet lands with a thud. Wall Street Journal, Eastern Edition, 28 Dec 2000, A12.Google Scholar
- Fich, E. M., & Shivdasani, A. (2005). The impact of stock-option compensation for outside directors on firm value. Journal of Business 78, 2229–2254.Google Scholar
- Hermalin, B., & Weisbach, M. (1998). Endogenously chosen boards of directors and their monitoring of the CEO. American Economic Review, 88, 96–118.Google Scholar
- Lublin, J. S. (2001). Multiple seats of power: Companies are cracking down on number of directorships board members can hold. Wall Street Journal, 23 Jan 2001, B1.Google Scholar
- Mace, M. (1986). Directors: Myth and reality. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Mehran, H.,, & Yermack, D. (1997). Compensation and top management turnover. Working paper, New York University, Stern School of Business.Google Scholar
- Shin, H.-H., & Stulz, R. (2000). Firm value, risk, and growth opportunities. Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research 7808.Google Scholar
- White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 431–460.Google Scholar